Edward C. Allen v. Western Governors University, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00325
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 EDWARD C. ALLEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00325-RFB-NJK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE

9 v.

10 WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Throughout the course of this litigation, Plaintiff Edward C. Allen has repeatedly submitted 14 filings to this Court containing citations to misrepresented and nonexistent case law. He has done 15 so even after multiple warnings regarding his obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 Rule 11, and the possibility of potential sanctions, including case dispositive sanctions. These 17 warnings did not deter Mr. Allen, and to date, he has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation 18 for his misrepresentations to this Court. As a result, for the following reasons, the Court finds that 19 dismissal of this case with prejudice is appropriate. 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On February 19, 2025, Mr. Allen commenced this action by filing an application to proceed 23 in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) and Complaint against Defendants Western Governors 24 University, Kumar Pandya, Allen C. Clarkson, Elizabeth McCarthy, Liz Moenich, Stan Schmidt, 25 Brian Hicks, Heather DeTomaso, Rochelle Sydnor Kahl, Robbyn Michaels, and Rachel Lay1 26 (collectively “Defendants”). See ECF No. 1. On April 22, 2025, the Court granted Mr. Allen’s IFP 27 28 1 Misspelled and misidentified individual defendant names are corrected here. See ECF No. 15 at 2 n.1. 1 Application and docketed his Complaint. ECF Nos. 18-19. On April 21, 2025, Defendants filed a 2 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, noting that it contained a litany of misleading citations and 3 citations to nonexistent legal authorities. See ECF No. 15 at 15-16. On May 6, 2025, Mr. Allen 4 filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See ECF No. 23. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Mr. Allen’s original Complaint became 6 moot. See ECF No. 28. However, on May 27, 2025, the Court issued an Order, which provided in 7 relevant part:

8 Plaintiff's original Complaint appears to have contained citations that misrepresent legal authorities and citations to non-existent legal authorities, as discussed in 9 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 15 at 5-16. Plaintiff is warned that 10 although he is pro se, he is still subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(b)(2) (providing that by presenting a 11 pleading to the Court, an unrepresented party certifies that "the legal contentions are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous argument..."). 12 13 Under Rule 11, Plaintiff can be sanctioned for citations to non-existent case law, misrepresentations of case law, or frivolous legal arguments. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 14 11(c); see, e.g., Ferris v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-304-MPM- JMV, 2025 WL 1122235 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 2025) (ordering a self-represented 15 plaintiff to pay the costs incurred by the defendant in responding to the plaintiff's 16 fabricated citations). Plaintiff is obligated to read the legal authority he intends to rely upon, confirm its existence and validity, and confirm that it supports 17 his legal contentions, before citing to that authority in any submission to this Court. 18 19 See ECF No. 28 (emphasis added). Despite that Order, Mr. Allen took no action to correct the 20 misrepresentations in his pleadings. 21 On June 13, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 22 Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 34. In it, Defendants identified indicia of dishonest factual 23 allegations in the FAC which appeared to be designed to overcome the applicable statute of 24 limitations, see id. at 5, and again listed Mr. Allen’s citations to misrepresented and nonexistent 25 legal authorities in the FAC, id. at 14-16. Defendants also notified the Court of a stipulated 26 judgment against Mr. Allen, entered in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada, 27 in State Bar of Nevada v. Allen, No. A-22-852411-C, Dkt. No. 24 (Nev. Dist. Ct. Mar. 7, 2024). 28 Pursuant to that Judgment Mr. Allen is enjoined from practicing law without a license in Nevada. 1 See id. 2 The same day, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this case should not 3 be dismissed as a sanction for Mr. Allen’s repeated violations of Rule 11. See ECF No. 36. The 4 Court ordered Mr. Allen to file a written response. Id. On June 19, 2025, Mr. Allen filed his 5 Response to the OSC. See ECF No. 38. The Court finds Mr. Allen’s Response to the OSC 6 contained the following misrepresentations: 7 • Mr. Allen attributed the quote “both baseless and made without a reasonable and 8 competent inquiry” to Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 9 2002). See ECF No. 38 at 3. That case contains no such quote. 10 • Mr. Allen attributed the quote “a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could 11 believe his actions to be factually and legally justified” to Cooter & Gell v. 12 Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 401 (1990). See ECF No. 38 at 3. That case 13 contains no such quote. 14 • Mr. Allen attributed the quote “Rule 11 may apply to pro se parties, but courts must 15 take into account a pro se litigant’s lack of legal training” to Warren v. Guelker, 29 16 F.3d 1386, 1390 (9th Cir. 1994). See ECF No. 38 at 5. That case contains no such 17 quote or holding. In fact, its holding is that courts cannot decline to impose 18 sanctions under Rule 11 simply based on a litigant’s pro se status. See id. at 1390 19 (“a court . . . cannot, however, decline to impose any sanction, where a violation 20 has arguably occurred, simply because plaintiff is proceeding pro se. A contrary 21 conclusion would effectively place all unrepresented parties beyond the reach of 22 Rule 11.”) 23 • Mr. Allen attributed the quote “Rule 11 is not intended as a vehicle for intimidation 24 or punishment for minor pleading errors” to Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, 25 Inc., 898 F.2d 684, 686 (9th Cir. 1990). See ECF No. 38 at 9. That case contains 26 no such quote or holding. 27 • Mr. Allen wrote: “As the Supreme Court has cautioned, courts must avoid using 28 Rule 11 ‘as a bar to the courthouse door’ for litigants attempting in good faith to 1 remedy non-malicious oversights. Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393.” See ECF No. 2 38 at 10. That case contains no such quote or holding. 3 • Mr. Allen provided the following citation and parenthetical: “Sineneng-Smith, 982 4 F.3d 766, 773 n.2 (9th Cir. 2020) (acknowledging appellate errata used to correct 5 legal references).” That case contains no reference to errata, and the footnote 6 cited is entirely irrelevant to Mr. Allen’s position. 7 • Mr. Allen provided the following citation and parenthetical to nonexistent 8 authority: “See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 2014 WL 9 10321141, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2014) (noting that errata is an accepted 10 mechanism for correcting typographical or citation-based issues).” ECF No. 38 at 11 8. The Westlaw number cited leads to a “Joint Statement of the Case” in a case 12 involving an automobile accident in the Superior Court of California. The Court 13 has located two decisions from the Northern District of California with the same 14 name, but neither reference errata as Mr. Allen claims. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. 15 Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. C 12-05501 SI, 2014 WL 121640 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 16 2014); Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. 17 Cal. 2017). 18 o In a subsequent filing Mr. Allen again cited 2014 WL 10321141 and wrote: 19 “Plaintiff respectfully affirms that this citation was accurate in substance 20 and context. In Verinata, the Northern District of California accepted an 21 errata to clarify disputed citations. Plaintiff’s use of this case was expressly 22 limited to illustrating that such procedural corrections are a recognized and 23 accepted practice—not as authority for any substantive legal holding.” ECF 24 No. 42 at 2. The Court finds Mr. Allen representation is false. See above. 25 • Mr. Allen provided the following citation and parenthetical to nonexistent 26 authority: “Lewis v. Ryan, No. CV-03-2519-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Jan. 3, 2008) 9) 27 (court accepted errata to address clerical citation issues).” See ECF No. 38 at 8. The 28 Court located a case with the same name under a different case number in the 1 District of Arizona, which contains an order dismissing a federal habeas petition on 2 the grounds of waiver and procedural default—an order that is entirely irrelevant 3 to Mr. Allen’s position. See Lewis v. Ryan, No. CV-17-01982-PHX-DJH, Dkt. 4 No. 17 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2018). That case has no errata filings despite Mr. Allen’s 5 representation. 6 o In a subsequent filing, Mr. Allen wrote: “Plaintiff acknowledges that this 7 docket-level decision is not published in commercial databases such as 8 Westlaw or Lexis, but it is available through the CM/ECF/PACER system 9 as a valid district court filing.” See ECF No. 42 at 2. On CM/ECF, the case 10 number cited by Mr. Allen leads to a case called Stafford v. Vigil, No. 3- 11 CV-02519-SRB (D. Ariz). The Court finds Mr. Allen’s representation 12 that the case he cites is available on CM/ECF is false. 13 • Mr. Allen wrote: “Where citation inaccuracies were identified—whether due to 14 software formatting artifacts, misunderstood reporter abbreviations, or omitted 15 corrections from draft versions—Plaintiff has corrected the record transparently 16 and without delay.” ECF No. 38 at 7. The Court finds this is inaccurate. First, 17 “formatting artifacts, misunderstood reporter abbreviations, or omitted corrections” 18 do not explain the misrepresentations listed above. Second, Mr. Allen has failed to 19 promptly, comprehensively, or transparently correct his misrepresentations 20 throughout this litigation. 21 On July 9, 2025, Defendants filed a Reply to Mr. Allen’s Response to the OSC. Defendants 22 noted Mr. Allen has publicly represented that he has a Juris Doctorate from Arizona Summit Law 23 School and has “civil litigation skills.” See ECF No. 45 at 2-3. Defendants also notified the Court 24 of Mr. Allen’s inaccurate citations to authority in the Response to the OSC and cataloged nine 25 examples of misrepresented and nonexistent authority cited by Mr. Allen in his (ECF No. 40) June 26 26, 2026 Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss his SAC. See id.; ECF No. 45-4. 27 On March 17, 2026, the Court held a hearing on the OSC. See ECF No. 52. At the hearing, 28 Mr. Allen stated “I’ve been in this business for eighteen years.” See Hr’g Tr. 3:8, Mar. 17, 2026, 1 ECF No. 53. The Court asked Mr. Allen to explain his repeated misrepresentations in filings 2 despite the its warnings and stated, “'I’m not sure why I would believe that it won't continue to 3 happen because I haven't received from you, yet, an adequate explanation as to why and how this 4 occurred.” Id. at 5:8-10. Plaintiff responded: “Well, it occurred through my error in research. It 5 occurred through -- I mean, that's pretty – the collective on it. I probably should not have even 6 entered those cases into the pleadings at all and stuck closer to a Rule 8 minimal notice.” Id. at 7 5:11-15. Defendants also represented to the Court that they had catalogued over sixty 8 misrepresented or fabricated case citations in Mr. Allen’s pleadings to date. Id. at 8:11-25. 9 When asked, Mr. Allen also admitted to the Court that the allegations in his SAC were 10 inaccurate as to the date of his disciplinary expulsion by Defendant Western Governors University 11 (“WGU”). Hr’g Tr. at 16:16-17. The SAC alleged he was expelled in February of 2022, but Mr. 12 Allen confirmed at the hearing that he was in fact expelled on February 25, 2021, as alleged in his 13 original complaint, such that the statute of limitations for his federal claims ran well before he 14 commenced this action in February 2025. See id. The Court finds based on the circumstances that 15 Mr. Allen knowingly misrepresented the date of his expulsion by Defendant WGU in his SAC to 16 mislead the Court in an attempt overcome the statute of limitations. 17 At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered monetary sanctions against Mr. Allen 18 in the form of Defendants’ attorneys' fees and costs incurred as a direct result of his citations to 19 nonexistent or misrepresented authorities. See ECF No. 52. The Court took the matter of the OSC 20 under advisement. The Court’s Order dismissing this case with prejudice follows. 21 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 This Court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case when a plaintiff violates its order(s). 24 See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We have 25 repeatedly upheld . . . dismissal for failure to comply with . . . court orders.”) (citations omitted). 26 “Federal courts possess certain ‘inherent powers,’ not conferred by rule or statute, ‘to manage their 27 own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Am. Unites for 28 Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. 1 Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017)). Through these powers, district courts have “the ability to 2 fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Goodyear Tire & 3 Rubber Co., 581 U.S. at 107) (citation and quotation marks omitted). For instance, a “district court 4 may, among other things, dismiss a case in its entirety, bar witnesses, exclude other evidence, 5 award attorneys’ fees, or assess fines.” Am. Unites for Kids, 985 F.3d at 1088 (citation omitted) 6 (emphasis added). 7 A district court must find that a party willfully violated its order(s), or acted in bad faith, 8 to sanction the party based on the court’s inherent powers. See Am. Unites for Kids, 985 F.3d at 9 1090 (citation omitted). If a district court makes this threshold finding, it should not dismiss the 10 party’s case unless the case presents “extreme circumstances” that satisfy certain criteria 11 established by the Ninth Circuit. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 12 1998). Specifically, this Court must consider five factors (“Dispositive Sanction Factors”) “before 13 resorting to the penalty of dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 14 (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 15 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 16 sanctions.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. The 17 Ninth Circuit has recognized that the first and fourth factors cut in opposite directions. See Yourish 18 v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (first factor always weighs in favor of 19 dismissal); Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 401 (9th Cir. 1998) (fourth factor 20 counsels against dismissal). 21 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Mr. Allen has willfully and repeatedly violated 24 its Order requiring him “to read the legal authority he intends to rely upon, confirm its existence 25 and validity, and confirm that it supports his legal contentions, before citing to that authority in 26 any submission to this Court.” See ECF No. 28. The Court further finds that Mr. Allen has made 27 willful misrepresentations with the intent to mislead the Court in multiple filings, including, most 28 egregiously, in his Response to the Court’s OSC why his case should not be dismissed as a sanction 1 for his repeated violations of Rule 11. 2 Even after being provided multiple opportunities to acknowledge, explain, and correct his 3 misrepresentations to this Court, he failed to provide a candid explanation (for example by 4 acknowledging that he used generative artificial intelligence tools to draft his pleadings) and 5 maintained that his citations were accurate or the result of benign typographical errors while 6 simultaneously citing to additional misrepresented or fabricated authorities. The Court is left to 7 assume that Mr. Allen either himself fabricated authorities and lied to the Court by claiming the 8 inaccuracies were the result of typos or clerical errors, or enlisted the assistance of AI, which 9 misrepresented and fabricated cases to support his assertions, failed to check their validity (even 10 after being specifically instructed to do so), and then lied to the Court about their origins. 11 Further, while Mr. Allen’s Response to the Court’s OSC asserted that he should be 12 afforded lenience due to his status as a pro se litigant, the Court finds Mr. Allen is neither 13 unsophisticated nor inexperienced in litigation even though he is proceeding pro se. Indeed, he 14 purportedly has a juris doctorate degree, and claims he has “been in this business for eighteen 15 years.” See Hr’g Tr. 3:8, Mar. 17, 2026, ECF No. 53. And even if that were not the case, “although 16 courts make some allowances for a pro se [p]laintiff's failure to cite to proper legal authority, courts 17 do not make allowances for a [p]laintiff who cites to fake, nonexistent, misleading authorities.” 18 Saxena v. Martinez-Hernandez, No. 2:22-CV-02126-CDS-BNW, 2025 WL 522234, at *4 (D. Nev. 19 Feb. 18, 2025) (cleaned up) (quoting Morgan v. Cmty. Against Violence, 2023 WL 6976510, at 20 *7 (D.N.M. Oct. 23, 2023). 21 Additionally, Mr. Allen’s misrepresentations are not limited to hallucinations that are 22 typically attributable to the use of an AI tool. Rather, the Court finds Mr. Allen knowingly 23 misrepresented material facts in his SAC to mislead the Court, in an effort to overcome the fact 24 that the applicable statute of limitations for his federal claims ran before he commenced this case. 25 The Court finds that these circumstances, taken together, constitute evidence of bad faith. 26 The Court finds monetary sanctions and case dispositive sanctions are warranted here. 27 “Courts across the country have issued sanctions against attorneys and pro se parties for 28 submitting fictitious case citations, fictitious quotations, and related misrepresentations to the 1 court.” United States v. Hayes, 763 F. Supp. 3d 1054, 1071 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting cases 2 issuing monetary or case dispositive sanctions) (emphasis added). First, the Court finds that 3 monetary sanctions are warranted to compensate Defendants for their wasted time and resources 4 which directly resulted from Mr. Allen’s repeated citations to misrepresented or fabricated legal 5 authorities. The Court further finds monetary sanctions are necessary to deter Mr. Allen from 6 repeating similar conduct—as he has already consented to a judgment prohibiting him from 7 engaging in the unlicensed practice of law, but that has not deterred his egregious conduct before 8 this Court. 9 Further, the Court concludes that Mr. Allen’s case should be dismissed because the 10 Dispositive Sanction Factors weigh in favor of dismissal. First, the Court finds that (1) the public’s 11 interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation and (2) the Court’s need to manage its own 12 docket both weigh in favor of dismissal. See Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 13 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Where a court order is violated, [these] first two factors support sanctions 14 . . . .”). After all, Mr. Allen’s practice of misrepresenting facts and legal authorities to the Court 15 squanders its resources, delays the swift resolution of his case, and disrupts this Court’s ability to 16 manage its docket. 17 Similarly, the Court finds that the risk of prejudice to Defendants weighs in favor of 18 dismissal. “In determining whether a defendant has been prejudiced, [this Court] examines 19 whether the plaintiff’s actions . . . threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” 20 Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Mr. Allen’s 21 course of conduct undoubtedly interferes with the disposition of this case on the merits. Put simply, 22 this case cannot proceed if Mr. Allen cannot be trusted to submit accurate and honest legal and 23 factual representations to the Court, such that Defendants and the Court must invest time and 24 resources in identifying these inaccuracies, rather than focusing on the merits of Mr. Allen’s 25 claims. 26 The Court also finds that less drastic sanctions are not available in this case, such that the 27 fifth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. To recap, the Court has already advised Mr. Allen of his 28 obligations under Rule 11 and warned him that that further misrepresentations would result in 1 sanctions. After that failed to deter Mr. Allen, the Court issued an OSC, which provided him an 2 opportunity to explain and correct his misrepresentations and warned of the possibility of case 3 dispositive sanctions should he fail to do so. Instead, he filed a Response that was riddled with 4 inaccurate and fabricated case law and incredulously claimed his previous misrepresentations were 5 the result of “software formatting artifacts, misunderstood reporter abbreviations, or omitted 6 corrections from draft versions.” ECF No. 38 at 7. 7 The Court further held a hearing and again provided Mr. Allen an opportunity to explain 8 his misrepresentations—but he failed to provide a candid account or demonstrate an appreciation 9 of the gravity of his conduct. Instead, he became obstinate. Hr’g Tr. 15:10-13 (“I just wasn’t 10 prepared to be thrown under the bus about character assassinations and everything else.”). At this 11 juncture, the Court finds there are no meaningful alternatives to dismissal. It could enter a second 12 order that, once again, requires Mr. Allen—consistent with his obligations under the Federal 13 Rules—to correct his misrepresentations and verify the accuracy of his legal and factual 14 representations going forward. But the reality of repeating a willfully violated order is that it only 15 delays the inevitable. Since this Court does not have to exhaust every conceivable sanction before 16 finally dismissing a case, the Court concludes that there are no “possible and meaningful 17 alternatives” to dismissal. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation 18 omitted). 19 Finally, although the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits cuts 20 against dismissal, the Court notes that Mr. Allen has already admitted that his federal claims are 21 barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In any event, the Court finds that this factor is greatly 22 outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal. 23 In sum, Mr. Allen has willfully violated this Court’s prior order and repeatedly attempted 24 to mislead this Court in bad faith, and the Dispositive Sanction Factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 25 Accordingly, the Court invokes its inherent powers to dismiss Mr. Allen’s case with prejudice. 26 27 IV. CONCLUSION 28 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ pending (ECF No. 34) Motion to Dismiss 1s DENIED as moot. 3 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 4 DATED: March 31, 2026. 5 6 7 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-ll-